Durandus of St Pourcain: A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas (Oxford Theological Monographs)

326 Pages·2005·1.19 MB·English

by  Isabel Iribarren

OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS
EditorialCommittee
M.McC.ADAMS M.J.EDWARDS
P.M.JOYCE D.N.J.MACCULLOCH
O.M.T.O’DONOVAN C.C.ROWLAND
OXFORDTHEOLOGICALMONOGRAPHS
KARLRAHNERANDIGNATIANSPIRITUALITY
PhilipEndean(2001)
EZEKIELANDTHEETHICSOFEXILE
AndrewMein(2001)
THEODORETHESTOUDITE
TheOrderingofHoliness
RomanCholij(2002)
HIPPOLYTUSBETWEENEASTANDWEST
TheCommentariesandtheProvenanceoftheCorpus
J.A.Cerrato(2002)
FAITH,REASON,ANDREVELATIONINTHETHOUGHTOFTHEODORE
BEZA
JeVreyMallinson(2003)
RICHARDHOOKERANDREFORMEDTHEOLOGY
AStudyofReason,Will,andGrace
NigelVoak(2003)
THECOUNTESSOFHUNTINGDON’SCONNEXION
AlanHarding(2003)
THEAPPROPRIATIONOFDIVINELIFEINCYRILOFALEXANDRIA
DanielA.Keating(2004)
THEMACARIANLEGACY
ThePlaceofMacarius-SymeonintheEasternChristianTradition
MarcusPlested(2004)
PSALMODYANDPRAYERINTHEWRITINGSOFEVAGRIUSPONTICUS
LukeDysinger,OSB(2004)
ORIGENONTHESONGOFSONGSASTHESPIRITOFSCRIPTURE
TheBridegroom’sPerfectMarriage-Song
J.ChristopherKing(2004)
ANINTERPRETATIONOFHANSURSVONBALTHASAR
EschatologyasCommunion
NicholasJ.Healy(2005)
Durandus
of St Pourc¸ain
A Dominican Theologian
in the Shadow of Aquinas
ISABEL IRIBARREN
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,oxfordox2 6dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
WithoYcesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
(cid:1)IsabelIribarren,2005
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2005
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Iribarren,Isabel.
DurandusofSt.Pourc¸ain:aDominicantheologianintheshadow
ofAquinas/IsabelIribarren.
p.cm.
ISBN0-19-928231-5(alk.paper)
1.Trinity–Historyofdoctrines–MiddleAges,600-1500. 2.Durandus,
ofSaint-Pourc¸ain,BishopofMeaux,ca.1275-1334. 3.Thomas,
Aquinas,Saint,1225?-1274. 4.Theology,Doctrinal–History–Middle
Ages,600-1500.I.Title.
BT109.I75 2005
230’.2’092–dc22
2005018651
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
BiddlesLtd.,King’sLynn
ISBN0-19-928231-5 978-0-19-928231-9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
To Philip
Preface
The highly analytical nature of the discussions which occupied medieval
university theologians has earned them an unfortunate reputation. The
familiar Renaissance parody—how many angels can dance on the point of a
needle?—Wnds currency even today, helping to perpetuate the image of late
scholasticism as some sort of second Dark Ages: an unlit interlude between
the humanism of the twelfth century and the renewed optimism of the
Wfteenth.Eventhe bestequippedscholarcanshyattheintricacies whichare
better dismissed as historically irrelevant and philosophically obscure. R. W.
Southern, who otherwise devoted much of his work to the golden age of
scholasticism, neatly summarizes this mixture of admiration and baZement
causedby thelaterreWnements:
Itisnotanexaggerationtosaythat,withalltheirgapsandweaknesses,theworksof
these twelfth-century masters reshaped European society, whereas the technically
much more accomplished works of their successors have their place in histories of
theology or philosophy, and only tangentially in the history of the development of
Europeangovernmentandsociety.1
Thefollowingbookseekstoaddressthehistorian’sdismay.Inattemptingto
reconstruct the main episodes of a theological controversy in a way both
intelligibletothenon-specialistandrespectfuloftherigorousargumentation
ofitsprotagonists,Ihopetobringoutthehistoricalrelevanceofthesedebates
and, indoing so, tochallenge theinherited ideaofan ossiWed scholasticism,
outoftouchwithitsenvironment.ThecontroversywhichmarkedDurandus
of St Pourc¸ain’s career took place—as perhaps all far-reaching controversies
do—in a political matrix; in a milieu, that is, in which a whole range of
participantshadspecialinterests.Indeed,theopinionoftheParismasters,as
it gradually crystallized into a collective and relatively homogeneous voice,
notonlymettheneedsofthetime(asthemastersattemptedtodeWnehighly
sensitive issues like the Wlioque), but also gained considerable ascendancy in
thepublicsphere,aspopeandkingcontendedforuniversitysupportinabid
to make academic consensus an instrument of universal control or (in the
king’scase)nationalself-determination.
Myaimisthuspredominantlyhistorical,asindeedarethequestionsIshall
engagewith.Mymaterial,however,isdenselytheological,consistingasitdoes
1 R.W.Southern,ScholasticHumanismandtheUniWcationofEurope,ii(Oxford:Blackwell,
2001),5.
Preface vii
of academic expositions of the Trinity. I am therefore hoping that the book
will be of interest not only to historians but also to theologians. As anyone
trying to ride two horses at once is in danger of falling oV both, so I have
courted this danger in seeking to expound highly technical issues while
keepingthehistorical‘tempo’.HistorianswillWndlongpassagesofTrinitarian
theologyinalanguagewhichechoesitsAristotelianorigins,andoftenforfeits
rhetorical Xuency to argumentative rigour. Theologians, on the other hand,
may at Wrst Wnd my allusions to the historical dimension a distraction,
appearing to cramp an exposition which a purely systematic approach
would have rendered more eVective. In the end, I can only hope to have
contributed a little to the task (much remains to be done) of luring the
historians’guildintothescholasticclassroom.
Mychoiceofcontroversy—thereisawidegamutofcontroversiestochoose
from in the scholastic period—responds to both theological and historical
interests. The conXict between Durandus and the Dominican order reXects
fourteenth-century doctrinal tensions vividly. Covering a period of almost
twentyyears,thiscontroversysawtheconfrontationoftwoWrst-rateDomin-
icantheologians,atatimewhentheorderwasfullyengagedinpromotingthe
theological authority of Thomas Aquinas. Hervaeus Natalis was a leading
memberoftheorderandahard-lineadherenttoThomistdoctrine,whosaw
in Durandus an independent spirit of great destabilizing potential and in
muchneedofcorrection.JosephKoch’sseminalwork2hadlongagopointed
out the central role which the controversy with Durandus played in the
defence and promotion of Thomism. But whereas a good number of works
haveappearedinthepastdecadesdealingwithtopicsindirectlyrelatedtothe
conXict with Durandus, very few have engaged directly with the issues
involved in it in a way which brings out their true historical and doctrinal
signiWcance. A closer look at the way the controversy developed—a look
which has necessarily required a punctilious handling of the theological
material—has yielded a picture of the debate far more gratifying than the
clear-cut clash of ‘Thomists’ and ‘anti-Thomists’ which the conventional
literature has rehearsed so far. ‘Thomism’ was a fairly protean notion in the
early fourteenth century, subject to the interpretation which the leading
Dominicans of the time saw Wt to enforce. Likewise, Aquinas did not rise to
canonical status on a Dominican platform alone. Franciscan intellectual
achievementshadmuchtocontribute.Thatfact,byitself,callsforarevision
of the standard account of the reception of Aquinas’s teaching by second-
generationThomists.Whathasbeenconventionally presentedasaninternal
Dominican quarrel was in fact a clash between two distinctly Franciscan
2 JosephKoch,DurandusdeS.PorcianoOP:ForschungenzumStreitumThomasvonAquinzu
Beginndes14.Jahrhunderts(Mu¨nster:AschendorV,1927).
viii Preface
doctrinaltrends,asHervaeusborrowedfromScotistinsights,whileDurandus
optedfortheolderFranciscanschoolofBonaventure.Inthebroaderpicture,
therapidheadwaymadebyThomismisalsoasymptomofcurrentsatwork
inthefourteenth-centurychurch,whichrandeeperthantheinternalhistories
of one or the other religious order. Aquinas’s Neapolitan origin made him
readilycongenialtoJohnXXII,anAvignonesepopewhocamefromthesame
world and who felt naturally inclined to promote his own theologian—
especiallyatatimewhentheParisiantheologicalestablishmentwasbeginning
to turn to the king as a more obvious patron. That Durandus was favoured
within papal circles, despite his reputation among Dominicans, further tes-
tiWestothepope’spriorities,ashesoughttoformatheologicalentourageof
hisown,awayfromParis.
As a theologian overshadowed by the rising Wgure of Aquinas, Durandus
hasbeentraditionallycondemnedtoaminorroleinthegreaternarrativesof
theperiod.His‘maverick’statushasplacedhimonahistoricaltangent.This
fact nevertheless presents the historian with a rare opportunity. It makes
Durandus’scaseaprivileged standpointfromwhichtosee certain otherwise
hiddenfeaturesofearly fourteenth-centuryscholasticism.Durandus’scareer
reXects—asthatofamorecentralauthorcouldnot—thechangingpatternof
thoughtandpracticeinthosedecades.Thedoctrinaltensionswhichrentthis
period are wonderfully illustrated in Durandus’s double sobriquet of doctor
modernus and doctor resolutissimus: an independent spirit prepared to
espousethemostoriginalviews,whilerefusingtocapitulatetorecentmagis-
terialtrends.Itisthejoyinilluminatingtheneglectedthatfromahistorically
forsakencharacter werediscoverhiscentury.
This book is a revised and expanded version of my doctoral thesis ‘The
Trinitarian Controversy between Durandus of St Pourc¸ain and the Domin-
ican Order in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Limits of Theological
Dissent’, submitted at Oxford University in 2001. In bringing the work to
its present stage I have beneWted from the assistance and good advice of
variouspeople.IamespeciallygratefultoRichardCross,thethesissupervisor
andeditorialadviserforthisbook,whosesharpremarkskeptmemindfulof
thetechnicalsubtleties,whileinstructingmeawayfromunnecessarycompli-
catedness. Alexander Murray provided invaluable support, helpful advice,
and lucid comments at every stage. I want to thank him for his patience in
readingthescript,andforhisgenerosityinlendingmehiscopyoftheprinted
version of Durandus’s commentary for handy consultation throughout the
preparation of this book. Jean Dunbabin, who Wrst suggested—or rather
warned me about—Durandus, oVered continuous support and encourage-
ment, and always showed an active interest in my work. My thanks, too, to
Preface ix
Russ Friedman, who shared his works and thoughts, helping me towards a
fairer assessment of Franciscan and Dominican idiosyncrasies, and whose
readingofthepreliminarydraftyieldedveryconstructivecomments.Healso
facilitatedaccesstoessentialprimarysources,withoutwhichthisbookcould
nothavebeencompleted.MydebtinthatrespectismoredirectlytotheHill
MonasticManuscriptLibraryofStJohn’sAbbeyandCollege,forprovidinga
facsimile copy of the Wrst recension of Durandus’s commentary, and to the
InstitutdeRechercheetd’HistoiredesTextesfortheirpromptnessinprovid-
ing a copy of Hervaeus’s tracts. At the earlier stages of the thesis I beneWted
fromtheinsightsofitsexaminers,CeciliaTrifogliandJohnMarenbon.Henry
Mayr-Harting oVered invaluable academic support at crucial times, and
DavidD’Avraymadehelpfulobservations.
I Wrst became interested in medieval theology during the course of my
undergraduatedegreeinCaracas(1991–6),whentheworksofR.W.Southern
fortuitouslyfellintomyhands.InspiredbySouthern’sscholarship,Idecided
to come to Oxford, where I began graduate work in 1997 on a Dervorguilla
ScholarshipgrantedbyBalliolCollege.IamdeeplyindebtedtoMauriceKeen
and Revd Douglas Dupree, who oVered indispensable support during those
early stages. Other institutions have provided much assistancein later years.
LinacreCollegeoVeredmeaJuniorResearchFellowshipfortheacademicyear
2001–2. The College’s welcoming environment gavea promising start to my
postdoctoral research. An Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship
funded my research during the year 2002–3, a period in which Berlin’s
urbancharismaprovidedthenecessarydisplacementtofacetheinitialstages
ofthesisrevision.InOctober2003,StJohn’sCollege,Oxford,electedmefora
three-yearJuniorResearchFellowship,makingitpossibleformetocomplete
thepreparationofthethesisforpublication.Atthebeginningofmytenureat
St John’s, Iwas kindly invited byRuedi Imbach to participate at the presen-
tation of the critical edition of Durandellus’s Evidentiae at Fribourg Univer-
sity,Switzerland.ThiseventallowedmetorevisittheDominicancontroversy
with Durandus from a broader perspective, the result of which has shaped
much of the conclusion of this book. Others who have helped me along the
way, in conversation or shared material, are Chris Schabel, Sylvain Piron,
Alain Boureau, Andrea Robiglio, Rafael Toma´s Caldera, Vı´ctor Krebs, and
Martin Lenz. Mydeepest gratitude goes to my parents, for their unswerving
conviction; to my brother Leopoldo, my most cherished and stimulating
interlocutor;andtomydearestfriend,PhilipBroadbent,towhomIdedicate
thisbook.
I.I.
October2004